Here's an idea: Let's disband Anonymous.

[jericu]

Oh god, you're serious, aren't you?

Anonymous cannot be disbanded. Anonymous cannot be destroyed. It is an amalgam of every halfway decent hacker who believes in free speech and the first amendment. There are no entrance fees, no members list, anyone who wishes to be a part of Anonymous may be a member of Anonymous, in however large or small a way they desire. Disband Anonymous? The idea is preposterous, and impossible. Even if it is possible, it certainly won't be achieved by making a post on an internet forum.

What's the reason for this? They've "Lost their way?" That we "Can't take anything they say at face value?" Are these problems supposed to be unique to Anonymous? Are you trying to say that any organization or group to which these phrases apply should destroyed and rebuilt from the ground up? By this reasoning, one could make the same claim about anything. Politicians. The media. Religion. The internet. Movies. Video games. The human race. You can't make a vague claim of "They don't have the RIGHT to be a group" without better reasoning than "They don't stand for what they originally stood for!" Especially since, far more than most organizations, they do still stand for what they originally stand for.

While I'm sure you have good intentions with this post, I'm almost entirely certain that it's in vain. The few members of Anonymous, if any, who read this post will most likely ignore it, leave you a troll face with a "U Mad, bro?", or send you a message with your IP address and some other information about you with a "WE ARE ANONYMOUS, FEAR US" at the bottom. As you said, you're trying to light a match, but I'm afraid it's already been dipped in a bucket of water.

 

[Pegghead]

Trying to break up anonymous would be like trying to catch smoke with your bare hands. Anonymous isn't a group, it isn't a movement, it's not even that much of a label, it just kind of...is.

But for those sectors of "anonymous" that do have a sense of order (i.e key members, networks etc) you'd find it would be like pissing into the ocean.

 

[BGH122]

No, a meme is a repeated pop culture reference. People are more accurate to call it an idea because a meme is more sub-category of ideas, a KIND of idea. Anon would be another. And the line of thinking I'm having here is that if the idea isn't working, get a new one or improve upon it. This one? Not working.

meme= something only a certain group knows about.

Nope, that's not what that word means:

meme
noun
a cultural item that is transmitted by repetition in a manner analogous to the biological transmission of genes.
Origin:
1976; < Gk m&#299;meîsthai to imitate, copy; coined by R. Dawkins, Brit. biologist

OK I'll just leave you to your raywilliamjohnsons and your internets

Fine by me!

No, a meme is a repeated pop culture reference. People are more accurate to call it an idea because a meme is more sub-category of ideas, a KIND of idea. Anon would be another. And the line of thinking I'm having here is that if the idea isn't working, get a new one or improve upon it. This one? Not working.

That's not what a meme is (see above). Ironically, the misunderstanding of the word meme is itself a meme; the word meme has one genuine meaning (quoted above), but the idea of it as a pop culture reference has taken a stronger hold due to its greater spread than the genuine meaning of the word.

The reason I say Anon is a meme is because it works much like all memes: its success is measured in its spread and, as it spreads, it mutates to meet the new environmental challenges it faces in its new host. If person A wants to do good from anonymity so as to avoid punishment if that do-gooding should break the law or annoy the powerful then the Anonymous meme will ring true with them and express itself in that way. If person A spreads the idea to person B, who wants to be mischievous from behind anonymity then it expresses differently.

It isn't possible to stop precisely because it's just a concept (if the genuine meaning of the word meme is buggering things up in translation) that's incredibly successful in spreading itself. That's why threads talking about Anonymous, positively or negatively, will just spread the concept.

The only way for the concept to be utterly stopped is if the environmental demands change e.g. if people decide they don't like anonymity anymore or that there's nothing appealing about the concept and hence either don't uptake the concept or don't spread it.

 

[stabbymcstabs]

Anonymous cant be stopped as it isnt an actual group, it exists though any individual person who believes it to be. As long a someone has something to say against someone else there will be an anonymous.

People can band and disband as they please as it their way of life, no group can stop it, as they are anonymous themself.

They are Anonymous

We. Are. Anonymous

 

[The Becker]

The only reason Anons have "power" (it seems) is because people acknowledge them. So in theory the only way to "disband" anonymous would be to not acknowledge them

 

[Harlief]

From what I've read, there are some good guys in Anonymous and some absolute Jerks, I think the good guys should band together and distance themselves from the rabble of attention seekers who consider themselves part of Anonymous. They should also be more selective about who they let into their group.

 

[steampunk42]

of course we can, that would just involve everyone agreeing to never unite against something we collectively may disagree in ever again. and while we are at it while dont we order the tides to go back, and for rivers to stop flowing!

 

[FalloutJack]

The only reason Anons have "power" (it seems) is because people acknowledge them. So in theory the only way to "disband" anonymous would be to not acknowledge them

Quite possibly the most concise summary of the subject at hand?

 

[Jegsimmons]

Anon isn't a group.

The Anonymous movement is an idea, it can't be disbanded and it can't be unthought. It just is.
You can say Anonymous isn't anything any more but the fact it was something will make people think it up all over again.
You can't stop people thinking for themselves, wearing a mask and standing up and saying "No".

uh .....yeah...pretty much this...also i think trying to sabotage a group is considered a crime anyway.

 

[crop52]

Nobody knows what anonymous is.

Some people say anonymous is "The Internet Hate Machine"
Some people say that anonymous is a movement against Scientology.
Some people say anonymous are just people who say that they're part of anonymous
Some people say that anonymous is whoever browses 4chan.

Since anonymous has no hierarchy or leaders, nobody can say what anonymous really is.

Just wanted to put that out there, since I'm seeing a lot people thinking that they know what anonymous is.

 

[Aprilgold]

Their an idea, the only way to kill an idea is to kill EVERYONE that has heard of the idea. Its impossible, sorry.

 

[PancakesSUCKTHEYDO]

Eh, I think the "movement" will fall apart on its own.


Due to cyber criminals (the worst kind, don't even have the balls to mug you.) attacking websites claiming to be anon. Which will lead to their demise? Also since they have no lead figure, anyone can technically make statements for them.

 

[Febel]

Disband...Anonymous.
Disband...Anonymous
I've heard some silly suggestions for dealing with them but this, this takes the cake. Good luck with that.

 

[FalloutJack]

Their an idea, the only way to kill an idea is to kill EVERYONE that has heard of the idea. Its impossible, sorry.

Or come up with a better one. Yes, the "Ideas are bulletproof" reference was made, perfectly understandable. Problem: I'm not using bullets. I'm using ideas.

 

[Aprilgold]

Their an idea, the only way to kill an idea is to kill EVERYONE that has heard of the idea. Its impossible, sorry.

Or come up with a better one. Yes, the "Ideas are bulletproof" reference was made, perfectly understandable. Problem: I'm not using bullets. I'm using ideas.

Hmm, are your ideas perfect? Well, coming up with a better one would be good, but then you'd have to OVERSHADOW the other one from public memory.

 

[Canadamus Prime]

The only reason Anons have "power" (it seems) is because people acknowledge them. So in theory the only way to "disband" anonymous would be to not acknowledge them

Quite possibly the most concise summary of the subject at hand?

But by even creating this thread you've acknowledged them so you've already failed.

 

[EdwardOrchard]

What's the reason for this? They've "Lost their way?" That we "Can't take anything they say at face value?" Are these problems supposed to be unique to Anonymous? Are you trying to say that any organization or group to which these phrases apply should destroyed and rebuilt from the ground up? By this reasoning, one could make the same claim about anything. Politicians. The media. Religion. The internet. Movies. Video games. The human race. You can't make a vague claim of "They don't have the RIGHT to be a group" without better reasoning than "They don't stand for what they originally stood for!" Especially since, far more than most organizations, they do still stand for what they originally stand for.

I'm sitting on the sidelines to see how Anonymous' latest stunt plays out, and don't have any comment for the OP.

However, Jericu, this stands out. You asked, "Are you trying to say that any organization or group to which these phrases apply should be destroyed and rebuilt from the ground up?"
The answer is, "Yes, absolutely, why not?"

If a Politician goes back on his word, does the opposite of what he promised, changes his party's stance, what do you do?
Vote him out of office, impeach him, Viva la Revolutione! Put somebody in power who's policies you agree with.

The Media. If a news agency shows an extreme bias to one side while under the guise of fair and balanced media, what do you do?
You'd want it shut down, wouldn't you?

Religion? Really? If the Catholic church were to start preaching something that you don't agree with, what would do?
I don't know, probably go form Protestantism.

If the Internet became Internet 2.0, with rules and regulations everywhere, where nothing is free not even information... What would you do?
You'd probably do your part to form Internet 3.0 or some such, and get things back to the way they were.

If the movie and game industries became some money-driven cesspool, controlled by corporate greed with no care given to the consumer, the Gamer, what would you do?
How about giving the industry back to the Indie Developers? Games made by Gamers, for Gamers.

Humanity? Not sure what you're getting at here. Does not fit.

Anyways, my point is, what the hell are you talking about? A group changing its policies to something other than what it once stood for is a perfectly acceptable reason to want to kill it with fire, destroy it and rebuild it from the ground up.

 

[A Distant Star]

I think you are working under a falls assumption of what Anonymous is.

Anonymous is scarcely a thing... not even truly an idea. What it really is, is a premise. Have you ever made a post online anonymously? Then you are Anonymous. Anonymous is a form of collective, but not a collective tied by ideology, religion or politics. It is, as it's title suggests, a collective tied together by anonymity. For every Lul Sec, who hack security and are generally a nuisance, there is Chanology, who try to stop the spread of an exploitative cult. For every Anon who posts child pornography there is another Anon who reverses the distortion on those same images and forwarding them to the police so the abuser can be caught and prosecuted. Other then shared Anonymity, Anonymous is a contradiction in terms.

 

[nklshaz]

Personally, I'd be glad if Anonymous was no more. In their petty squabble with Sony, a bunch of people were effected who didn't want anything to do with it, and weren't taking sides in the argument.

 

[Sheogoroth]

[This post has been deleted by user]